There are 2 desktop gaming systems I can potentially acquire. All the specs are identical, except one has a an i7-8700K and the other has an i5-8600K. The question is, is it worth an extra $257 to get the i7? As an old-school computer guy, I have an almost subconscious desire to chase stats, but as a technical person, I also have to reasonably evaluate how much having hyperthreading and a couple more MHz is really worth here. To add some more details, I don't play games much right now, but I'd like to play more. However, I have little interest in first-person shooters... my interests lie primarily in role playing and strategy type games. But then, I also have to wonder if there's any impact on future-proofing, as I intend to keep running this system for a while. So my question is, while I can certainly afford to spend the $257, I don't want to just flush it down the toilet if I'm going to get basically nothing out of it... so is it worth it? What say you? Thanks!
Is an i7-8700K worth $257 more than an i5-8600K?
- Thread starter clns1246
- Start date
Solution
- May 29, 2013
- 37,315
- 3,275
- 156,790
For the types of uses you describe, there will be no benefit. I doubt that the game types you list will use all the physical cores an i5 has, let alone the additional virtual cores of a hyperthreaded CPU.
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 80,411
- 7,631
- 176,790
I agree with Kanewolf, however, whether it is worth it as an investment in the future performance is something that only you can answer. We are currently at a point in game development where they are actually beginning to chase core count and optimize for it. So while it might not be all that terribly beneficial NOW for what you mainly do, it MIGHT be at some near future point for new titles.
We certainly see people with Sandy and Ivy bridge i7s that NOW are seeing more capable gameplay than those with same gen i5s. There wasn't much benefit at the time those were new for choosing an i7 in most cases, where relevant to gaming, than the available i5 at that time, and it still applies NOW with current gen platforms, but once the CPU has aged to the point where the core performance is not as relevant as it once was it is possible that the additional cores or hyperthreads may at least somewhat offset the fact that it has fallen behind in per core performance IF significant improvements have been made to optimize for the use of them by that time.
For NOW, you will be unlikely to see any major performance advantage just as Kanewolf has said, UNLESS you tend to do a good deal of multitasking alongside your game such as running many browser tabs, recording, streaming or other processes that would make having those additional resources appreciable.
We certainly see people with Sandy and Ivy bridge i7s that NOW are seeing more capable gameplay than those with same gen i5s. There wasn't much benefit at the time those were new for choosing an i7 in most cases, where relevant to gaming, than the available i5 at that time, and it still applies NOW with current gen platforms, but once the CPU has aged to the point where the core performance is not as relevant as it once was it is possible that the additional cores or hyperthreads may at least somewhat offset the fact that it has fallen behind in per core performance IF significant improvements have been made to optimize for the use of them by that time.
For NOW, you will be unlikely to see any major performance advantage just as Kanewolf has said, UNLESS you tend to do a good deal of multitasking alongside your game such as running many browser tabs, recording, streaming or other processes that would make having those additional resources appreciable.
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 80,411
- 7,631
- 176,790
You are assuming you know what country he is from. What is priced one way in one country is usually not even close in another, except maybe when comparing the US to the UK. Australia for example has wildly different pricing structures for some hardware. What is only a 100 dollar difference here, may be a two hundred dollar difference there.
Solandri
Illustrious
- Jan 4, 2012
- 4,919
- 98
- 39,240
While that's true, you also have to weigh spending that extra money NOW in hopes the CPU will provide better performance in the future, versus saving the money so you will have more money to buy a newer, faster, better CPU in the future.
IMHO, because of unforeseeable developments like Meltdown/Spectre, you shouldn't be spending extra money unless you know it will benefit you in the future (e.g. you will be doing video encoding in the future which can use use extra cores). For all you know, something may be unveiled next week which renders all your future hopes obsolete. OTOH, saved money in your bank account is eminently liquid.
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 80,411
- 7,631
- 176,790
Nobody saves money now to build a system five years down the road. At least, nobody that I've ever seen. I have not once seen anybody build or buy a system, with the intent of using the savings for a future build, and sticking that money in the bank with mental note attached to it that says "for future build". Have you? Be honest.
That's silly.
That's silly.
toshibitsu
Distinguished
- Sep 4, 2013
- 1,611
- 5
- 20,465
The laptop I'm currently using has an i7-6820HK & 1070 SLi. I can play games in 4k @ high/ultra settings and the CPU usage never reaches 100%.
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 80,411
- 7,631
- 176,790
What good is a second i5? You can't gain extra cores or hyperthreads by overclocking either. Like I said, it's a judgement call that should be made on a per case basis, by the person whose system will rely on the choice. What makes no sense for you might for me, or visa versa.
Honestly though, for a gaming system, might want to put that extra money into additional or faster storage considerations.
Honestly though, for a gaming system, might want to put that extra money into additional or faster storage considerations.
Solandri
Illustrious
- Jan 4, 2012
- 4,919
- 98
- 39,240
This is probably a debate more suited for a financial forum. But yes that's how I save/spend my money. Any money you don't spend today is money you'll have for future purchases (plus interest). It doesn't have to be earmarked for a future build. It just means I spend $257 less today, and my savings account balance is $257 higher. It'll probably be $300-$350 higher in the future when I'm ready to buy my next system.
IMHO the only silly way to do this is to set a budget and try to spend all of it, as if there were no future benefit to saving money. The only time that makes sense is a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Like you win a contest which will buy any computer for you up to $2000, and you lose any residual cash if you don't spend the full $2000.
I also recommend thinking of this not as a one-time purchase, but as a recurring expense. For example, if you can afford to put aside $400/yr for a computer, then that could mean you have $1200 for a new computer every 3 years, or $1600 for a new computer every 4 years. Saving $257 today could allow you to reduce the upgrade interval so you can buy your next computer a year earlier than you originally planned. Like I said, money is liquid. Keeping your assets as money gives you flexibility for future decisions. Converting it into a computer locks you into that choice, so you'd better be damn sure you're going to get full value out of that choice.
Darkbreeze
Retired Mod
- Jun 24, 2014
- 80,411
- 7,631
- 176,790
You'll get no argument from me that saving money is usually a good thing. I just don't think it is always a good thing. If you buy a CPU today, that does all you need it to today, and for the next three years, but after three years, doesn't, and you have to buy a whole new one, plus motherboard, maybe memory, then it clearly is not as good of an option as spending a few hundred more today for one that will last you five years. Two additional years use from a component at the rate of an extra 51.40 per year over the course of five years seems highly acceptable to me.
Maybe less than than that if it lasts you longer. Obviously, if you are somebody that tends to upgrade every cycle, or every couple of years, chasing specs as the OP mentioned, then it is not a good idea. What is available in two or three years will likely outstrip any advantage of buying a higher end model today.
Maybe less than than that if it lasts you longer. Obviously, if you are somebody that tends to upgrade every cycle, or every couple of years, chasing specs as the OP mentioned, then it is not a good idea. What is available in two or three years will likely outstrip any advantage of buying a higher end model today.
Laptops worthy of gaming cost about twice as much as better performing desktops, with a few occasional exceptions....
(wife's Acer laptop has 7700, GT1060. 256 GB SSD, so it does well, but, was on sale for $1000; most other laptops overpriced...)
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 14
-
-
-
Question New Build GPU help- ASRock Steel Legend OC Radeon RX 7900 GRE - Keeps turning off
- Started by bp240
- Replies: 6
-
Question How can I make my AMD GPU scale *all* resolutions to 1080p, even resolutions that are "supported" by my TV?
- Started by Sol33t303
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram